Full Version: Gitmo North?
Recently headline news has been buzzing about the Canadian Supreme Court “striking down” a law that allows the Canadian government to detain foreign-born terrorism suspects indefinitely using secret evidence and without charges while their deportations are being reviewed. Example: New York Times. But has it? Canadian National Post
Up until the time this was reported, I had no idea that Canada held such laws that permitted indefinite detention in the first place.
1. Have you heard of this? What is your position?
2. Considering the massive international public reaction to American detentions, is this inconsistent?
3. Do other nations have such laws?
4. Why is this ruling generally represented by the mass media as a major change in policy?
Up until the time this was reported, I had no idea that Canada held such laws that permitted indefinite detention in the first place.
QUOTE
Headlines immediately flooded onto the Web declaring that the court had "struck down" or "reversed" the system whereby foreigners on Canadian soil can be detained on the issuance of security certificates by the federal cabinet. It would be much more accurate to say that the Court had reviewed every aspect of the system, found that most of it was justified by national security, and asked only for minimal changes designed to protect the rights of the arrestees. Whether one believes the certificate system to be a necessary part of the post-9/11 landscape or an outrageous infringement upon universal liberties, the hype behind the ruling cannot be justified. Barring stronger legal arguments against them, the certificates -- along with the safeguards already built into the system by its legislative creators -- are here to stay.
The defining feature of the certificate scheme is that it allows for non-citizens suspected of being a threat to national security to be deported, and to be detained in the meantime, on the basis of information that remains secret. The court upheld these central features of the system, reasserting strongly that "non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada" and that they can be deported without special consideration for their Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Snip
he court also ruled that foreign nationals who do not live in Canada should be treated on par with permanent residents and given the chance to file applications for judicial review of a security certificate immediately after being detained, instead of having to wait 120 days to make any filing, as they do under the post-9/11 rules. Again, the government's representatives in court did not bother to offer much of a defence for the 120-day rule, stating that "when the provisions were drafted, it was thought that the [deportation] process would be so fast that there would be no need for review." In striking down the rule, the court seems to be, more than anything, cleaning up the loose ends in a hastily-planned law that was the product of post-9/11 urgency.
Neither of the court's reversals of immigration law represents the glorious dismantling of some sinister "Guantanamo North," as some breathless advocates are claiming. Nor does either constitute a particularly strong rebuke of the ways in which our legislators have tried to steer a course between national security and individual rights. The Court has been careful to show that it is conscious of the same dilemmas and difficulties that our lawmakers face in protecting us from terrorism. The principle that we owe fair treatment to foreign visitors, but are ultimately the guardians only of our own liberties and lives, stands unchallenged and unshaken.
The defining feature of the certificate scheme is that it allows for non-citizens suspected of being a threat to national security to be deported, and to be detained in the meantime, on the basis of information that remains secret. The court upheld these central features of the system, reasserting strongly that "non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada" and that they can be deported without special consideration for their Charter rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Snip
he court also ruled that foreign nationals who do not live in Canada should be treated on par with permanent residents and given the chance to file applications for judicial review of a security certificate immediately after being detained, instead of having to wait 120 days to make any filing, as they do under the post-9/11 rules. Again, the government's representatives in court did not bother to offer much of a defence for the 120-day rule, stating that "when the provisions were drafted, it was thought that the [deportation] process would be so fast that there would be no need for review." In striking down the rule, the court seems to be, more than anything, cleaning up the loose ends in a hastily-planned law that was the product of post-9/11 urgency.
Neither of the court's reversals of immigration law represents the glorious dismantling of some sinister "Guantanamo North," as some breathless advocates are claiming. Nor does either constitute a particularly strong rebuke of the ways in which our legislators have tried to steer a course between national security and individual rights. The Court has been careful to show that it is conscious of the same dilemmas and difficulties that our lawmakers face in protecting us from terrorism. The principle that we owe fair treatment to foreign visitors, but are ultimately the guardians only of our own liberties and lives, stands unchallenged and unshaken.
1. Have you heard of this? What is your position?
2. Considering the massive international public reaction to American detentions, is this inconsistent?
3. Do other nations have such laws?
4. Why is this ruling generally represented by the mass media as a major change in policy?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Feb 26 2007, 02:33 PM) 
Up until the time this was reported, I had no idea that Canada held such laws that permitted indefinite detention in the first place.
Actually, you would be astonished. Though they rarely use it, Police in canada have much stronger powers than in the US, and this is not some 9/11 thing, it has always been that way. The canadian secret service, CSIS operates technically above the law, only responding to a civilian oversight committee SIRC, after operations are over, or anually in the case of extended operations.
QUOTE
Neither of the court's reversals of immigration law represents the glorious dismantling of some sinister "Guantanamo North," as some breathless advocates are claiming. Nor does either constitute a particularly strong rebuke of the ways in which our legislators have tried to steer a course between national security and individual rights. The Court has been careful to show that it is conscious of the same dilemmas and difficulties that our lawmakers face in protecting us from terrorism. The principle that we owe fair treatment to foreign visitors, but are ultimately the guardians only of our own liberties and lives, stands unchallenged and unshaken.
The difference is that though Canada until recently had this power, it didn't use it. People arrested were given full consular and legal representation, and people were trated very reasonably. One of the few times non-citizens have been arrested and deported recently was holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, and this was a very rare case. For it to 'Guantanimo North', wouldn't there have to be prisoners?
On the other hand, some other laws are far stricter than in the US. Torture is stricktly forbidden, in all cases and that includes all forms, including ones deluded far rightwingers ocassionaly try to justify as 'not really being torture'.
You want to read about the powers of the state and police in canada? Pick up a history of the 'October Crisis' in canada in 1970, when by prime ministerial order, civil liberties in Canada were suspended.
While the US gets based for transferring terrorists to Islamic countries other countries do it as well including Canada:
Canada-Afghanistan detainee agreement allows torture: rights groups
by Joshua Pantesco
Global Research, February 23, 2007
Jurist
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Two human rights groups have called on Canada's Federal Court to review the legality of terrorism detainee transfer procedures under the Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement [text]. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] filed an application for judicial review Wednesday, alleging that the transfer of terrorist suspects from the custody of the Canadian Forces to Afghanistan may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text; fact sheet] and various international human rights obligations. The groups allege that Afghanistan tortures detainees.
Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote an opinion letter [PDF] last April, concluding that:
[t]he Arrangement fails to meet the minimum standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the care that Canadian Forces must take under Canada’s constitution to prevent detainees from being tortured after they are transferred to Afghanistan or another country. This problem is serious, and probably would result in the Arrangement being declared unconstitutional if it were judicially reviewed in a Canadian court.
http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/archer/agreement_e.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=4900
AND Canada has not yet, after 4 years, signed up to UN protocall:
Four years after its adoption by the UN General Assembly and several election promises later, we finally have agreement to examine whether Canada should adhere to the protocol. It’s hard to understand why a democratic government wouldn’t want to do everything it can to prevent and eliminate torture. There is no reason we should have waited this long to look at this matter,” said Marston (Hamilton-Stoney Creek).
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4916
Canada-Afghanistan detainee agreement allows torture: rights groups
by Joshua Pantesco
Global Research, February 23, 2007
Jurist
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Two human rights groups have called on Canada's Federal Court to review the legality of terrorism detainee transfer procedures under the Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement [text]. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] filed an application for judicial review Wednesday, alleging that the transfer of terrorist suspects from the custody of the Canadian Forces to Afghanistan may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text; fact sheet] and various international human rights obligations. The groups allege that Afghanistan tortures detainees.
Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote an opinion letter [PDF] last April, concluding that:
[t]he Arrangement fails to meet the minimum standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the care that Canadian Forces must take under Canada’s constitution to prevent detainees from being tortured after they are transferred to Afghanistan or another country. This problem is serious, and probably would result in the Arrangement being declared unconstitutional if it were judicially reviewed in a Canadian court.
http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/archer/agreement_e.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=4900
AND Canada has not yet, after 4 years, signed up to UN protocall:
Four years after its adoption by the UN General Assembly and several election promises later, we finally have agreement to examine whether Canada should adhere to the protocol. It’s hard to understand why a democratic government wouldn’t want to do everything it can to prevent and eliminate torture. There is no reason we should have waited this long to look at this matter,” said Marston (Hamilton-Stoney Creek).
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4916
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Feb 26 2007, 09:53 AM)
The difference is that though Canada until recently had this power, it didn't use it. People arrested were given full consular and legal representation, and people were trated very reasonably. One of the few times non-citizens have been arrested and deported recently was holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, and this was a very rare case. For it to 'Guantanimo North', wouldn't there have to be prisoners?
I agree that it isn't the same scale. There are apparently some prisoners, though. I've read that there have been a sum total of 27 in the past 16 years. Not many.
QUOTE(Ted @ Feb 26 2007, 12:55 PM)
Two human rights groups have called on Canada's Federal Court to review the legality of terrorism detainee transfer procedures under the Canada-Afghanistan Detainee Agreement [text]. Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association [advocacy websites] filed an application for judicial review Wednesday, alleging that the transfer of terrorist suspects from the custody of the Canadian Forces to Afghanistan may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [text; fact sheet] and various international human rights obligations. The groups allege that Afghanistan tortures detainees.
Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote an opinion letter [PDF] last April, concluding that:
[t]he Arrangement fails to meet the minimum standards of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the care that Canadian Forces must take under Canada’s constitution to prevent detainees from being tortured after they are transferred to Afghanistan or another country. This problem is serious, and probably would result in the Arrangement being declared unconstitutional if it were judicially reviewed in a Canadian court.
http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/archer/agreement_e.asp
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=4900
AND Canada has not yet, after 4 years, signed up to UN protocall:
Four years after its adoption by the UN General Assembly and several election promises later, we finally have agreement to examine whether Canada should adhere to the protocol. It’s hard to understand why a democratic government wouldn’t want to do everything it can to prevent and eliminate torture. There is no reason we should have waited this long to look at this matter,” said Marston (Hamilton-Stoney Creek).
http://www.ndp.ca/page/4916
Ted, I don't see anything to indicate that torture is condoned. These are prisoners that are captured in Afghanistan by Canadian forces. They are handed over to Afghan authorities after protections are ensured. This is in accordance with international law. WHat else are they supposed to do with the detained people?
QUOTE
Detainees who are wounded or sick will be cared for by the Detaining Power at first instance. Sick or wounded detainees will not be transferred as long as their recovery may be endangered by the journey, unless their safety, or the safety of others, imperatively demands it. Arrangements to transfer wounded or sick detainees will be expedited in order to reduce risk to their health or facilitate medical treatment.
The Participants will be responsible for maintaining accurate written records accounting for all detainees that have passed through their custody. Such written records should, at a minimum, contain personal information (as far as known or indicated), gender, physical description and medical condition of the detainee, and, subject to security considerations, the location and circumstances of capture. Such written records will be available for inspection by the International Committee of the Red Cross upon request. Copies of all records relating to the detainee will be transferred to any subsequent Accepting Power should the detainee be subsequently transferred. The originals of all records will be retained by the Transferring Power.
I see nothing wrong with this. In fact we do this as well. What is the alternative?
Ok, time to clear up some misconceptions.
Currently there are only two men who are in custody under a Security Certificate, while the other four are under strict bail conditions and effectively in "house arrest."
The Security Certificate system has been in place for a long time, and the current legislation dates back to 1991. After the WTC attacks the certificate system was enforced differently, but the legislation remained largely unchanged.
The Supreme Court did not (in Friday's ruling) strike down the law; rather it declared that provisions of the Security Certificate system were unconstitutional; chiefly that Citizens and non-citizens were subject to different treatments in contravention of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that all detainees were entitled to some form of representation during the closed-door hearings in which a Federal judge would decide the merit of each Certificate. The Court has given the government a year in which to draft a new system which is Constitutionally sound. At no point did the Court challenge the legality of Security Certificates themselves, or their utility in expelling Canadian residents.
Currently there are only two men who are in custody under a Security Certificate, while the other four are under strict bail conditions and effectively in "house arrest."
The Security Certificate system has been in place for a long time, and the current legislation dates back to 1991. After the WTC attacks the certificate system was enforced differently, but the legislation remained largely unchanged.
The Supreme Court did not (in Friday's ruling) strike down the law; rather it declared that provisions of the Security Certificate system were unconstitutional; chiefly that Citizens and non-citizens were subject to different treatments in contravention of Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that all detainees were entitled to some form of representation during the closed-door hearings in which a Federal judge would decide the merit of each Certificate. The Court has given the government a year in which to draft a new system which is Constitutionally sound. At no point did the Court challenge the legality of Security Certificates themselves, or their utility in expelling Canadian residents.
1. Have you heard of this? What is your position?
Have not heard of it. It is a reasonable position. The 120 day delay is unreasonable, although a shorter delay would be reasonable, as it would give the authorities time to take action on intelligence gained as a result of the arrest, before the arrest goes public. (Assuming its a public filing.)
2. Considering the massive international public reaction to American detentions, is this inconsistent?
Canada's not the Great Satan, er, Great Test Pattern as far as the media is concerned, hence, nobody outside of Canada cares much if it has greater police powers than American police, or less freedom of speech (Holocaust deniers are so a threat to Canadian national security, eh Vermillion?), etc. So, while on the face of it, the reaction is logically "inconsistent", its perfectly consistent with the media and Left's paradigm.
3. Do other nations have such laws?
I would be quite surprised if they didn't. A few countries might not, but my guess is that most do. Of course, one question would be how many of the countries that have such laws even bother to follow them. As an extreme example, North Korea may have such laws, but I doubt if it would make any difference in the treatment of a foreign national that has attracted the ire of the gubmint.
4. Why is this ruling generally represented by the mass media as a major change in policy?
Because the mass media is generally clueless, and their paradigm is shaped by their perspective on the US, not Canada. A similar tweaking in American law/policy they would trumpet as a major human rights victory regardless of its real impact. Getting the kitchen to serve green beans rather than brussel sprouts would be touted as a minor human rights victory, except of course at EU headquarters, where it would be a bloomin' miracle. Its all part and parcel of the dramatic narrative. Sometimes, just read this stuff as you would a sports story and the way it gets cast starts to make sense.
Have not heard of it. It is a reasonable position. The 120 day delay is unreasonable, although a shorter delay would be reasonable, as it would give the authorities time to take action on intelligence gained as a result of the arrest, before the arrest goes public. (Assuming its a public filing.)
2. Considering the massive international public reaction to American detentions, is this inconsistent?
Canada's not the Great Satan, er, Great Test Pattern as far as the media is concerned, hence, nobody outside of Canada cares much if it has greater police powers than American police, or less freedom of speech (Holocaust deniers are so a threat to Canadian national security, eh Vermillion?), etc. So, while on the face of it, the reaction is logically "inconsistent", its perfectly consistent with the media and Left's paradigm.
3. Do other nations have such laws?
I would be quite surprised if they didn't. A few countries might not, but my guess is that most do. Of course, one question would be how many of the countries that have such laws even bother to follow them. As an extreme example, North Korea may have such laws, but I doubt if it would make any difference in the treatment of a foreign national that has attracted the ire of the gubmint.
4. Why is this ruling generally represented by the mass media as a major change in policy?
Because the mass media is generally clueless, and their paradigm is shaped by their perspective on the US, not Canada. A similar tweaking in American law/policy they would trumpet as a major human rights victory regardless of its real impact. Getting the kitchen to serve green beans rather than brussel sprouts would be touted as a minor human rights victory, except of course at EU headquarters, where it would be a bloomin' miracle. Its all part and parcel of the dramatic narrative. Sometimes, just read this stuff as you would a sports story and the way it gets cast starts to make sense.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.